That doesn’t mean the group is ready to guarantee its latest lawsuit, filed last week over the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s phone surveillance program, will translate into a splashy win for civil liberties advocates.

Text Size

-

+

reset

But experts say the new case is unlikely to face the same headaches that have sunk many of the group’s previous suits. They also say it’s possible that the government’s own defense could wind up undermining its efforts to keep details of its data-gathering programs under wraps.

And even absent a win, they say, the ACLU could still drag enough previously classified information into the public domain to make the case worthwhile.

The suit filed Tuesday argues that the phone-tracking system detailed in The Guardian violates freedom of speech and privacy rights, with the ACLU arguing on its own behalf as a Verizon customer. The group wants the National Security Agency’s surveillance program stopped and all its records to be purged.

The case is aimed at the Supreme Court, where it would pose a challenge to a 1979 ruling that found no expectation of privacy when sharing information with a third party and would build on some of the doubts the court expressed in 2012 about that decision’s relevance in the current technological era.

“If this [NSA phone surveillance] came up to the Supreme Court with this Supreme Court, they would declare it unconstitutional,” Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office, said Thursday at an event hosted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is considering signing on to the group’s suit.

Some outside experts are less certain. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who worked at the school with President Barack Obama, said the ACLU’s position is “reasonable,” but he doesn’t see the court issuing a ruling that shuts down the phone surveillance program.

And based strictly on existing Supreme Court case law, says George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, the group’s arguments are “weak.”

But even skeptics of the ACLU’s chances concede the potential for progress. Edward Snowden’s leaks to The Guardian and The Washington Post may not lead to a wholesale dismantling of the NSA’s dragnet surveillance efforts — but the revelations could force the high court to reevaluate its interpretations of privacy law.

And this time around, says Kerr, “the ACLU’s goal is probably to get discovery” — to force the government to declassify more information about the programs — “not to win.”

The ACLU isn’t the only group to have taken legal action since the revelation of details of the phone-tracking and PRISM programs: Snowden’s leaks have translated into renewed support for legal efforts across the political spectrum.

Freedom Watch, a group led by former Justice Department official Larry Klayman, has filed two class action suits: one over phone surveillance and a second over PRISM, the NSA’s system of surveillance of the Internet activities of non-U.S. citizens abroad.